Jacqueline Leslie Cole

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the antidepressant Celexa (citalopram), alleging the drug caused congenital malformations when ingested by pregnant women and that the defendants failed to warn of this risk.

The court found that while the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and there was an identifiable class, the proposed common issue regarding the duty to warn lacked commonality because the risk of birth defects varied widely and individual causation issues would dominate.

The court concluded a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the inevitability of complex individual trials, and dismissed the certification motion.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim regarding therapeutic Botox injections.

The court found the action was statute-barred because the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts and attributed her symptoms to the Botox treatment well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to produce expert evidence establishing a breach of the standard of care and causation meant there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The appellants, two insurance companies, appealed the summary dismissal of their action against respondents for breach of an alleged oral agreement and inducement of breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the parties had agreed that no binding contractual relationship would exist without a signed written agreement (the "Precondition").

The Court of Appeal found this conclusion was a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence only supported that the parties intended to eventually document their agreement in writing, not that execution of a written contract was a precondition to legal obligations.

The court allowed the appeal against the Vancity respondents and directed the matter to trial, but dismissed the appeal against the Co-operators respondents on alternative grounds.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the defendant's mixed success on a summary judgment motion, the defendant sought costs of $3.6 million on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the award should not exceed $775,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs in pleading misrepresentation.

Considering the defendant's technical loss on the summary judgment motion, which nonetheless provided a strategic victory in defeating certification, the court fixed costs at $1.0 million on a partial indemnity basis as a fair and reasonable amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a life insurance company, alleging breach of contract regarding increases to the cost of insurance and administrative fees for universal life insurance policies.

The court had previously adjourned the motion to allow for further evidence on how the fees were calculated.

After reviewing actuarial evidence, the court found that the insurer had set and adjusted the fees in accordance with the policy terms and industry practice.

Concluding there was no basis in fact for the breach of contract claims, the court dismissed the certification motion in its entirety.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

Vancity claimed substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49.10 offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not apply where an action is dismissed, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the defendants' claimed hours were excessive, noting the plaintiffs failed to produce their own bill of costs for comparison.

The court fixed Vancity's fees at $200,000 and Co-operators' fees at $130,000, plus HST and allowable disbursements.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss claims of breach of contract and inducing breach of contract.

The plaintiffs alleged an oral agreement for an exclusive insurance supplier arrangement with Vancity Insurance, which was later sold to Co-operators.

The court found that no binding oral agreement existed because the parties intended their legal obligations to be deferred until a formal written contract was approved and executed.

Consequently, the claim for inducing breach of contract against Co-operators also failed, as there was no valid contract to breach, and Co-operators had no knowledge of a binding agreement, nor did it "turn a blind eye." The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The plaintiff sought to add an orthopaedic surgeon as a co-defendant to a medical malpractice action nearly ten years after the surgery, alleging that the surgeon fraudulently concealed an intraoperative event.

The Master granted the motion to add the surgeon with leave to plead a limitation period defence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice set aside the Master's order, finding that the plaintiff and his counsel knew or ought to have known of the potential claim against the surgeon shortly after the surgery.

The court held that there was no fraudulent concealment and that the claim against the surgeon was statute-barred.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing her action for non-compliance with a discovery plan.

The respondents opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for a stay or security for costs.

The Court of Appeal applied the five-factor test for extending time and found that the moving party had no intention to appeal within the time limit, offered no explanation for the delay, and the appeal lacked merit.

Given the moving party's history of non-compliance with court orders and abuse of process, the justice of the case did not favour an extension.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add a surgeon as a defendant in a medical negligence action after the action had already been set down for trial.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion on the basis that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that there were genuine issues of fact and credibility regarding discoverability, including allegations that the proposed defendant failed to disclose an intra‑operative complication and may have misled the plaintiff’s counsel.

Applying the approach in Wong v. Adler, the court determined that such factual disputes should not be resolved on a motion to amend.

The surgeon was therefore added as a defendant with leave to plead a limitation defence.

The plaintiffs brought an unsuccessful refusals motion in a proposed class action.

The successful defendant sought $30,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was excessive for an uncomplicated motion and suggested $5,000.

The court found the motion was important and vigorously contested, but agreed the defendant's claim was excessive.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 payable to the defendant in any event of the certification motion.

In a proposed class action alleging negligent, reckless, and fraudulent misrepresentations in the sale and administration of universal life insurance policies, the plaintiffs brought a refusals motion arising from cross-examinations on affidavits filed for certification and a summary judgment motion on limitations.

The court held that the moving parties had not shown the relevance of broad document requests and questions tied to the insurer's separate indemnity litigation, and that much of the requested material had already been produced or was unnecessary for the pending motions.

The court further held that questions about the selection and preparation of former sales agent witnesses were protected by litigation privilege.

The refusals motion was dismissed.